According to the new IHS study, the proposed Keystone XL pipeline would have “no material impact” on US GHG emissions. In the absence of the pipeline, alternate transportation routes would result in oil sands production growth being more or less unchanged, the study says.

According to the new IHS study, the proposed Keystone XL
pipeline would have no material impact on US GHG
emissions. In the absence of the pipeline, alternate
transportation routes would result in oil sands production
growth being more or less unchanged, the study says.

The study also found that any absence of oil sands on the US
Gulf Coast (the destination for Keystone XL) would most likely
be replaced by imports of heavy crude oil from Venezuela, which
has the same carbon footprint as oil sands.

The pipeline's potential impact on GHG emissions has been the subject of
increased focus. President Barack Obama's June 25 climate
address indicated that the relative emissions related to increase
Canadian oil sands processing in US markets resulting from the
pipeline are key criteria for the United States' decision
whether to approve the project.

The new IHS CERA Canadian Oil Sands Dialogue study agrees
with the conclusions of the US State Department's Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for
Keystone XL that says oil sands production is expected to
continue at similar levels regardless of whether Keystone XL
goes forward. IHS currently expects oil sands production to
grow from 1.9 million barrels per day (MMbpd) in 2013 to 4.3
MMbpd in 2030 and does not expect the Keystone XL decision to
have a material impact on the production outlook.

The IHS study points out that 3 MMbpd of additional oil
sands pipeline capacity (not including Keystone XL) is
currently proposed. Eighty percent of this proposed alternate
capacity travels exclusively through Canadaconnecting the
oil sands with Canada's west and east coastsand thus
would not require U.S. government approval.

Even if pipeline capacity were to lag behind oil sands
growth, the study says that transportation by rail is expected
to play an ongoing role and that greater investment could make
rail more economic to a level approaching that of
pipelines.

The study found that with sufficient scale and investment
the additional cost of transporting oil sands by rail to the US
Gulf Coast rather than by pipeline could be lowered from today.
If heavy oil sands producers were to invest in improved rail
efficiencies, the economics could be within $6/bbl compared to
pipeline (for each barrel of oil sands produced). This would
place rail well within the break even range for most oil sands
production. One source of improved economics could come from
shipping oil sands bitumen in its pure state. A lack of
pipeline capacity would incentivize such added investment.

The study also found that, were oil sands not to be shipped
to the US Gulf Coast, it would result in little to no change in
overall GHG emissions. The regionwhich contains 50% of
total US refininghas a large capacity
to process heavy crude. This means that crude oils of similar
GHG intensity would continue to be refined in the absence of
oil sands, the study says.

Venezuela is currently the largest single supplier of heavy
crude to the US Gulf Coast and would be the most likely
alternative source of heavy crude supply absent oil sands. IHS
research has found Venezuelan heavy crude to have a similar
range of life-cycle GHG emissions as oil sands imported into
the United States.

Venezuelan heavy oiland Venezuelawould be
the number one beneficiary of a negative decision on
Keystone, the study says.

Sorry, but the IHS study results are both incorrect and too easy for pipeline opponents to defeat (and I say this as an XL supporter). Consider this:

IHS study concluded: http://press.ihs.com/press-release/energy-power-media/ihs-study-keystone-xl-pipeline-would-have-no-material-impact-us-gre "August 8, 2013) –The proposed Keystone XL pipeline would have “no material impact” on U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, according to a new IHS study. In the absence of the pipeline, alternate transportation routes would result in oil sands production growth being more or less unchanged, the study says.

BUT THIS ASSUMES THE ENVIRO ACTIVISTS ARE UNSUCCESSFUL AT BLOCKING GATEWAY, THE EAST/WEST (ENERGY EAST) LINE, RAIL EXPANSION AND OTHER TRANSPORTATION OF BITUMEN FROM THE OIL SANDS, ALL OF WHICH ARE MORE OR LESS IN JEAPORDY RIGHT NOW DUE TO ACTIONS OF ENVIRO ACTIVISTS. ONE COULD USE THE IHS ARGUMENT FOR GATEWAY OR ANY OF THE OTHER TRANSPORTATION PLANS AND THAT WOULD BE EQUALLY NAIVE I WOULD SAY FOR THE SAME REASONS. Remember, climate campaigners are out to kill all transportation methods between the oil sands and refineries and, at the rate they are going, they have a good chance of succeeding.

IHS also say that they "found that any absence of oil sands on the U.S. Gulf Coast (the destination for Keystone XL) would most likely be replaced by imports of heavy crude oil from Venezuela, which has the same carbon footprint as oil sands."

YES, BUT IF KEYSTONE XL IS BUILT, ONE OF THE BENEFITS, SO THE US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SAY (ALTHOUGH OTHERS DISPUTE THIS) IS LOWER GAS PRICES IN THE US, WHICH MAKES SENSE OF COURSE AS EXPANDING SUPPLY USUALLY LOWERS PRICES. WITH LOWER PRICES, CONSUMPTION WILL LIKELY RAISE AND SO WILL CO2 EMISSIONS.

In the IHS report itself at http://www.ihs.com/images/CERA-Insight-Keystone-Emissions-Aug-2013.pdf it says, "The most likely alternative USGC heavy oil supply is Venezuelan crude which is in the same GHG emissions range as oil sands. Consequently, if oil sands were not consumed in the Gulf Coast, there would be little to no change in the overall GHG intensity of the US crude slate." THIS IS NAÏVE AS WELL.